Posted on 08/06/2005 2:11:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
Thanks to a virtual blackout by his fellow editors elsewhere in the media, odds are good that you haven’t heard or read that Executive Editor Bill Keller of The New York Times recently capitulated in the debate over bias in America’s newspaper of record.
Keller’s capitulation came in a lengthy memo he distributed in the Times’ newsroom in May as a response to an updating of a massive report by a committee appointed in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal to recommend measures to restore the gray lady’s credibility.
In a section of the memo headed “The News/Opinion Divide,” Keller conceded that "even sophisticated readers of The New York Times sometimes find it hard to distinguish between news coverage and commentary in our pages." The Times will always carry both news and opinion, but, Keller argued, “we should make the distinction as clear as possible.”
Think about those statements for a moment. Here we have the top man in the newsroom at the nation’s most important daily – the newspaper that more than any other sets the mainstream print and broadcast media’s agenda – essentially conceding what countless critics have argued for years. Thus we see a storied institution admitting its need to rededicate itself to achieving a standard previously claimed as the daily norm of performance.
Not only that, but Keller also conceded one of the major problems facing the Times in the aftermath of the Blair scandal is the cultural isolation that marks the paper’s newsroom. To counter that isolation, Keller encouraged his colleagues to undertake "a concerted effort to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."
To drive the point home, Keller also noted that "our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions and to portray lives both more radical and more conservative than those most of us experience. We need to listen carefully to colleagues who are at home in realms that are not familiar to most of us."
Again, think about those words. Critics have charged for years that the Times newsroom is out of step with the majority of the country because the editorial staff represents but a small atypical slice of American demographics and opinion. That narrowness in turn has handicapped the daily’s ability to identify, assess and credibly report much of the news deemed important by the rest of the nation. Now Keller says it’s time for the newsroom to get in touch with the rest of America.
A significant part of the effort to reach out to the rest of the nation concerns the Times’ ability to understand the one-third of Americans who identify themselves as religious conservatives (i.e. evangelicals and fundamentalists of all stripes, plus conservative Catholics and Orthodox Jews).
To that end, Keller encouraged the daily newsroom staff to listen to colleagues working on the Times’ magazine for lessons “about portraying religious conservatives in an interesting and three-dimensional way.” He also warned about “the misuse of [the phrase] ‘religious fundamentalists’ to describe religious conservatives.”
Perhaps Keller would be willing to host an internal editorial seminar featuring Christian journalists like David Neff of Christianity Today, Christian philosophers like Nancy Pearcey and Christian bloggers like Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost to explain the lay of the religious conservative land?
So how should long-suffering critics of the Times react to Keller’s words and actions? Much of the commentary on the Right side of the Blogosphere has been rather predictably negative, snarky or sarcastic, or some combination thereof. I believe that approach is mistaken.
How about instead we offer Keller encouragement and praise for ‘fessing up’ to serious problems of longstanding and for putting his own career and prestige on the line in making the effort to deal with those problems in a systematic and reasonable way?
It wouldn’t hurt, either, for Times critics on the Right to show some patience because changing an entrenched culture like that of a newsroom isn’t going to happen overnight, nor will it occur without some unexpectedly abbreviated careers and a surplus of discontent bred by an inability or refusal to change.
There will certainly be times when Keller and his newsroom allies will wonder if it’s really worth the effort. A good word from those who have been on the outside critically looking in may be the difference between throwing in the towel and fighting the good fight another day. I say give the man a break. And some encouragement.
What drivel. Just look at the way the NYT's *reporters* (not the editorial section) has censored their pages of anything to do with the Air America scandal.
NYT fluff pieces promoting Air America: 28
NYT pieces reporting the Air America scandal: 0
I never look at that rag anymore. They're history.
Somebody give me Keller's email at the Grey Whore.
Like if the Dixie Chicks would apologize, I should buy their music? They are still the same chicks. No thanks.
Let the Times come clean on covering up the Holocaust.
Socialist small town newspaper editors have ways of getting around this too. They live in liberal safe havens several counties away. Even if the peasants become outraged enough, they can be assigned to another paper in the news group that generally owns them.
By the way, if the Times has changed, why haven't we seen a single article regarding the Boys and Girls Club loaning taxpayer's money to Air America?
Sophist
soph·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sof' ist)
n.
1 a. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation
They don't need a break.
All they have to do is start reporting fairly and people will stop slamming them.
There will certainly be times when Keller and his newsroom allies will wonder if it’s really worth the effort. A good word from those who have been on the outside critically looking in may be the difference between throwing in the towel and fighting the good fight another day.
Nobody talks a better game about principle than journalists. Look at the Times' own Judith Miller. If their commitment to fairness is so tepid that they need our encouragement to do the right thing, then the question is already answered.
Yeah! Break their cojones!!!
Do you mean the famine in the Ukraine?
Leopard never change their spots.
They would have to prove it by performance , after about 50 years, I might give them the benefit of doubt.
How you feeling?
Mighty glad to see you're fracture hasn't slowed you down.
Well, they're not reporting on the Air America scandal, are they?
Keep their feet to the fire.
What's a matter, NY Slimes? Losing money? Crash and burn! Maybe there's some kind and old hearted socialists that will let you move in with them and let you shove crap out of the barn for the collective.
He may want to change things, but it's not going very well. Someone over there should be terminated for the Roberts adoption thing. There should be new people hired if they want a different perspective, just attempting to change those who are already there is not enough and will never work.
Should Reagan have given Gorby a breaK? Should Dubya give Osama a break? I literally believe that the NY Times is a less trustworthy pub than the National Enquirer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.